A California man is suing Microsoft, alledging that his Surface tablet did not provide the advertised amount of disk space. The 32G device has 16G of space for users, as the operating system uses the other 16G. The 64G Surface leaves 45G free for users. The case will turn on whether Microsoft has clearly explained to customers how much free space the Surface leaves for their use outside of the OS. How much disk space does your OS consume?

.......No. The device does have 32GB of storage. How that storage is used is something else entirely.
Nope. There is an implication there that is very, very clear and legally it has been proven umpteen times in false advertising cases.

You keep saying this but have yet to provide one single shred of proof. You haven't cite one single law or one single successful case. Basically you're just blowing smoke and hoping nobody notices that you're not providing any actual facts. The buck stops there, that's why I didn't bother replying to the rest of your smoke/post.

The buck stops there, that's why I didn't bother replying to the rest of your smoke/post.

Because you've had your ass carved out and handed to you on a spoon. Why? Because you cannot argue this out, that's why.

You're desperately asking for a law that says 'Consumers must get x amounts of free bytes' to dig you out of this hole when this is covered under false advertising. For anyone who professes to talk about this subject this is so stupid it isn't even funny.

You advertise 32GB of storage then you give a user 32GB of storage. Th clear message is that is storage for the user otherwise why advertise it? There might be reasonable circumstances under which consumers wouldn't get exactly 32GB (tolerances etc.) but giving users under half that will be argued as completely unreasonable - as I have done here. Seagate and Western Digital were successfully sued for using size units to make their hard drives look bigger. The discrepancy? 5%.

The thread ends here because you can't argue this or respond to anything that's been presented. However, this is exactly what will happen in a court somewhere here.

[
Because you've had your ass carved out and handed to you on a spoon. Why? Because you cannot argue this out, that's why.

No he hasn't.

You're desperately asking for a law that says 'Consumers must get x amounts of free bytes' to dig you out of this hole when this is covered under false advertising. For anyone who professes to talk about this subject this is so stupid it isn't even funny.[/q[

"You advertise 32GB of storage then you give a user 32GB of storage. Th clear message is that is storage for the user otherwise why advertise it? There might be reasonable circumstances under which consumers wouldn't get exactly 32GB (tolerances etc.) but giving users under half that will be argued as completely unreasonable - as I have done here. Seagate and Western Digital were successfully sued for using size units to make their hard drives look bigger. The discrepancy? 5%.

FACT

* The storage of the drive is 32gb, that hasn't changes.

* Half is used by the OS.

* This is stated on the site.

It isn't the same situation and therefore the ruling you are linking to isn't relevant.

The thread ends here because you can't argue this or respond to anything that's been presented. However, this is exactly what will happen in a court somewhere here. "